Slashdot Mirror


Half the Universe's Missing Matter Has Just Been Finally Found (newscientist.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The missing links between galaxies have finally been found. This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe -- protons, neutrons and electrons -- unaccounted for by previous observations of stars, galaxies and other bright objects in space. You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull. But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far. Two separate teams found the missing matter -- made of particles called baryons rather than dark matter -- linking galaxies together through filaments of hot, diffuse gas. "The missing baryon problem is solved," says Hideki Tanimura at the Institute of Space Astrophysics in Orsay, France, leader of one of the groups. The other team was led by Anna de Graaff at the University of Edinburgh, UK. Because the gas is so tenuous and not quite hot enough for X-ray telescopes to pick up, nobody had been able to see it before.

247 comments

  1. Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Just been finally found"?

    How about "Just been found" or "Finally been found"?

    1. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL What I was thinking is my thoughts are it should at least be finally reworded to the following statement of words for the title of said article:

      "just finally been found".

    2. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Sadly that headline was copied verbatim from the New Scientist story.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sadly that headline was copied verbatim from the New Scientist story.

      Or, rather, had just been finally copied.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or, rather, had just been finally copied.

      Much yes. So grammar. Wow.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    5. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by ytene · · Score: 2

      Had we "just lost" this Dark Matter in the same way that Mr Bean "just lost" his binoculars?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    6. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Well, English isn't Science.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My kingdom for a mod point. Holy fuck that was funny.

    8. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tell that to a cunning Linguist, you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally just now been found for the first time.

    10. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they're letting Twitler write headlines for /. now, eh?

    11. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by thelexx · · Score: 1

      To make matters worse, as opposed to the summary the headline makes it sound like they only found half of the missing matter.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    12. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, the phrase "6 or 1/2 dozen of the other" has now been scientifically quantified!

    13. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Hey, the phrase "6 or 1/2 dozen of the other" has now been scientifically quantified!

      But you can't tell which is which until you open the box of donuts.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    14. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Or "Just been noticed". It's been sitting there right in front of us all along.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re: Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately, we've just lost the other half we already had.

    16. Re: Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      It's OK, it had just slipped down behind the sofa. Should have checked there in the first place.

      Oh, and we also found a pile of spare change, and Obama's original birth certificate.

    17. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      "Just been finally found"?

      How about "Just been found" or "Finally been found"?

      Discussing the semantics of the title is absurd, because the notion the matter was "missing" is absurd. It was always there, we were just too blind to see it.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    18. Re: Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From our point of view it was missing. Indeed only from our point of view since it was deemed missing based on our scientific theories.

      If I wash a pair of socks and only find one sock when putting the washing awsy, I would still say there was a sock missing, even though my best theory states that the sock exists somewhere.

      If you're going to be a pedant you need to work on your logic skills.

    19. Re: Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      From our point of view it was missing

      Your point of view is irrelevant to the natural world. Just because you close your eyes and keep repeating to yourself, "There is no train speeding at me" doesn't mean you're not going to get hit by it

      --
      We'll make great pets
    20. Re: Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      The word "missing" requires a point of reference. The only other interpretation would be that a missing object must violate the conservation of mass, which is clearly not what somebody means when they say that something is missing.

    21. Re: Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      The word "missing" requires a point of reference.

      Precisely and one was not provided. So why not just be clear and say "We just discovered X exists" like pretty much every other scientific discovery that's ever been made by the human race.

      The only other interpretation would be that a missing object must violate the conservation of mass, which is clearly not what somebody means when they say that something is missing.

      This has really nothing to do with physics. We live in MATERIAL WORLD that is independent of us. Science especially Physics is analyzing this material world that we refer to as the universe attempting to understand it. If we don't live in an objective, material world, science is pretty much POINTLESS because we can't really know anything in any of these other models of existence. If all humans were DEAD, this universe would still be here. Now you can argue that there is no way to prove such a statement but all the evidence suggests that this is the most plausible explanation. All this nonsense about subjective experience being "reality" is a bunch of bullshit. It's not particularly hard to make this case. Take my train example, place one of these subjective dream idiots in front of an oncoming train, have them reject the train's reality in their subjective experience while someone else takes a video and posts it to youtube and guess what happens? The stupid subjective experience dipshit is dead and the other observer saw it and post it where everyone else can see it. The mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to uphold the other position is ridiculous and I feel like it's more egocentrics than it is interested in pushing forward human knowledge.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    22. Re: Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      The word "missing" requires a point of reference.

      Precisely and one was not provided. So why not just be clear and say "We just discovered X exists" like pretty much every other scientific discovery that's ever been made by the human race.

      The point of reference is the human race, or if you like just physicists. They had already discovered it in a very important scientific sense (they found good reason to believe that it existed), but they didn't know where it was. Now they know where it is. From their perspective, they found something that had previously been missing.

      Absolutely nothing that I said implied that the rest of your comment was incorrect, and in fact I believe my statement implied heavily that quite a lot of it is true. I am not the metaphysical solipsist you are looking for.

    23. Re: Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      The point of reference is the human race, or if you like just physicists

      The universe does not need to be observed by humans to exist. Things that exist that humans are unaware of are not "missing". Are you dense?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    24. Re:Titles are adding in words for the hell of it by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      When I lose the TV remote, it's missing.
      Sure, it may be under the couch cushion, but I can't see it because the wavelengths my eyes are sensitive to don't penetrate couch cushions.

      Doesn't mean the remote isn't missing.

      If the wavelengths my telescope is sensitive to can't pick up this type of matter, means it appears to be missing.

  2. Dark matter by Mattcelt · · Score: 0

    I've been saying for years that "dark matter" and "dark energy" aren't really things. They're placeholders for some type of matter or interaction we'll discover later.

    That we're finally able to detect these baryon filaments is a solid step in the right direction to finally solving the "dark" mystery.

    1. Re:Dark matter by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've been saying for years that "dark matter" and "dark energy" aren't really things. They're placeholders for some type of matter or interaction we'll discover later.

      That we're finally able to detect these baryon filaments is a solid step in the right direction to finally solving the "dark" mystery.

      Not quite. TFA and TFS say that Dark Matter exists *and* they just found the missing "regular" matter. (highlighting mine):

      You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull.

      But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Dark matter by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has nothing whatsoever to do with dark matter or dark energy, and does nothing whatsoever to disprove the existence of either of those things. We knew this stuff existence, our models said it was in the intragalactic expanse, it's just it's hard to directly see because it's extragalactic: it's not inside stars, so it mostly doesn't emit light, and when it does it's not very bright.

      In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that this is just more (indirect) evidence for the existence of dark matter: it helps confirm our models/simulations of galaxy formation, and those models don't work without dark matter, and considerable amounts of it (far more of it than the "missing" baryonic matter they found, in fact).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow, you are so fucking cool to have derived that theory or I should say law of the universe. I canâ(TM)t believe nobody gave you recognition for it. I am fixing to write a stern letter to the Nobel prize committee for overlooking your achievement once again this year and giving it to a trio of guys who merely built a gravity wave detector which lets face it was like a failed volcano at a science fair in comparison to the insights revealed by your magnificent contribution.

    4. Re:Dark matter by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Informative
      I mean, did you even bother to read the summary?

      This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe -- protons, neutrons and electrons -- unaccounted for by previous observations of stars, galaxies and other bright objects in space. You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull. But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.

      This paper is talking about the missing non-dark matter that the current models said should be there. I had nothing to do with dark matter, and the matter they found has no impact on the expected amount of dark matter in the universe.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    5. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Baryon filaments have nothing whatsoever to do with dark matter or dark energy. Finding them is progress in validating current models since it finds matter that our current models say should be out there. It also strengthens the cause of "dark" matter/energy, since if our current models predict something (the presence of ordinary matter not currently detectable) that's verified by discoveries, it strengthens those models.

      This still doesn't mean there has to be actual dark matter of course. Physicists once believed there had to be an "Ether" in which light waves could propogate, because it was the only reality they could model. When Michaelson and Morley showed that the speed of light was independent of direction of travel, physicists scrambled to attribute various properties to Ether to account for their findings. Einstein ended up modelling a reality where the speed of light was a universal constant, and his model was eventually proven to be more accurate than the etheric model.

      It's very likely we'll never "see" dark matter. Likely we'll find a better model of the universe, something that makes gravity weaker at intergalactic distances, and dark matter will go the way of Ether. I'm less well versed in dark energy, but I bet it'll turn out to be something that vanishes too once we have a better universal model.

    6. Re:Dark matter by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      And I stand by my statement about three peer-reviewed papers.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    7. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dark matter--the new Phlogiston (or Miasma or Caloric or Lumniferous Ether). I'm just waiting for the rest of the unexplained mass to fall out as other forms of normal matter or energy we've just been failing to observe.

    8. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does relate to dark matter IN THAT we used DM to fill the hole in observable matter, until we've now observed it and no longer require that "fix" in our valid maths. Right?

    9. Re: Dark matter by orlanz · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should really read the article. This isn't two independent groups scanning and suddenly discovering new pieces of the universe. It's basically a common data aggregating process applied to massive amounts of data to brighten faint emissions. Considering every star gazer with $5000 worth of equipment and a Mac does this every week, how many papers does that need to prove itself?

      Of course the next step is to test it across more spots in the universe to hopefully find anomolies.

    10. Re:Dark matter by joh · · Score: 3, Informative

      No.

    11. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's never read anything that had just been published without review.

    12. Re:Dark matter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      There's actually an infinite amount of everything and we're getting close to detecting it and having perfect memories of everything that has ever happened.

    13. Re:Dark matter by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      And I stand by my statement about three peer-reviewed papers.

      Well if you read to the bottom of TFA, there are links to two papers. So just need one more to shut you up then?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    14. Re:Dark matter by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This comment shows what happens when imdb commenters are metastasised into other parts of the Internet by the closure of the imdb comment section.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:Dark matter by Falconnan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apologies, but almost all of this is wrong.

      Models based on observations indicated that 4% of the universe's mas/energy composition had to be normal, baryonic matter. Half of that 4% was missing until today. Dark matter, based on observations, needs to be approximately 23% of the mass of the universe. Otherwise galaxies would not have formed and would spin apart. Further, most of the mass of dark matter is associated with galaxies, and this matter was found between them. Details "matter" (unless of course they "energy").

    16. Re:Dark matter by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I've been saying for years that "dark matter" and "dark energy" aren't really things. They're placeholders for some type of matter or interaction we'll discover later.

      No they're real things, I kept them in the trunk of my car. Unfortunately I got really drunk a while back and haven't been able to remember where I parked. I'm guessing my car, and the missing dark matter/energy, are sitting in a police impound yard.

    17. Re:Dark matter by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      I've been saying for years that "dark matter" and "dark energy" aren't really things.

      Which would make you right, and in accordance with every scientist that's looking at this, anywhere. And when we find those types of matter, or interaction, or weird gravitational effect, or whatever, we'll likely still call it "dark matter". Does that mean it becomes a thing then, but wasn't before?

      Anyway, this isn't dark matter, or energy, it's the missing baryonic matter. Baryonic just basically means "regular stuff". Dark matter means "something else, not regular stuff".

    18. Re:Dark matter by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Dark matter is literally a placeholder for matter we expect to be there but can't detect.

      If we've found X more matter, that means there's X less dark matter out there.

    19. Re:Dark matter by sexconker · · Score: 0

      U r dum.

      Dark matter is nothing buy a placeholder for the missing matter we expect to be exist but can't detect.

      [matter we can detect] + [dark matter] = [matter we expect due to observation of gravitational effects]

      A + B = C

      By detecting previously undetected matter, we're increasing A and reducing B

    20. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Idiot. A = D (old matter) + E (Found matter). E B. so it/s (D+E) + B = all matter. You're the fifth idiot who said that. Learn to read previous comments.

    21. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, this "found" matter was already accounted for in the known matter area. The amount of dark matter / dark energy hasn't changed.

    22. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. We can calculate the density of baryons (protons an neutrons) in the universe by a completely independent method. The missing baryonic matter is small in quantity compared to the (indirectly observed) dark matter, which cannot be baryonic in nature. IAAP

    23. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question: why are non-physicists so hostile to the concept of dark matter? I'm genuinely curious. I ask you because you seem to be less emotional about it than most who profess skepticism about it.

    24. Re:Dark matter by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You (and the submitter or editor) seem to think that baryonic matter is something exotic. It is not. Baryons are the family of particles that comprise exactly three quarks, and include the protons and neutrons that make up all known (and unknown) elements. You're almost entirely made of baryonic matter.
      The real article says it's baryonic matter precisely to convey that it's mundane matter, and not mesons like pions or any of the really strange stuff like pentaquarks.

    25. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. TFA and TFS say that Dark Matter exists *and* they just found the missing "regular" matter. (highlighting mine):

      You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull.

      But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.

      Not quite. Dark matter is simply matter we cannot see, but we think must be there because of indirect astronomical observations. As we are able to observe more of the matter that exists in the universe, we move it from the dark matter column to the normal matter column. But, dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter, and will remain so until we move all of the expected matter into the normal matter column, or until we are able to observe and identify something that is not like normal matter.

    26. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if the normal matter now amounts to 5% and that's half then the normal matter is now 10%, eh.

    27. Re:Dark matter by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, this "found" matter was already accounted for in the known matter area. The amount of dark matter / dark energy hasn't changed.

      I understand that claim, but TFS sure as shit didn't make that clear.

      Regardless, the entire premise of "dark matter" is that our observations of matter are incomplete.
      It's fundamentally a "knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns" shell game.

      You're claiming that this was part of the "known unknowns" because we "know" the sum of the "knowns" and "known unknowns". This may be what TFA is saying, but the very fact that we have an "unknown unknowns" category means we really don't "know" shit. That category was literally made up to make the math work given our assumptions.

    28. Re:Dark matter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Or both

    29. Re: Dark matter by PoopJuggler · · Score: 0

      Ego. Humans are petty and insecure little monsters and will go to great lengths to prevent people from seeing how ignorant and stupid they are, by bashing anything that contradicts their established world view, even discounting actual science.

    30. Re:Dark matter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Why not? You must know why not.

    31. Re:Dark matter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Zeno's paradox.

    32. Re:Dark matter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The universe has an infinite amount of everything.

    33. Re:Dark matter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Baryonic means Proton and Neutron sized stuff. Dark matter means not yet found stuff.

    34. Re:Dark matter by dryeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You should check out the history of the discovery of the neutrino, a particle invented to make the maths work given our assumptions. Also very similar to dark matter as it barely interacts with normal matter.
      Interestingly when Fermi refined the theory giving a neutrino, Nature refused to publish it as too far out there.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The positron also was theorized first on the basis that Dirac's new theory allowed it. Though at first it wasn't considered as a new particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    35. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is reflected in the dark matter wiki page:

      Dark matter can refer to any substance which interacts predominantly via gravity with visible matter (e.g. stars and planets). Hence in principle it need not be composed of a new type of fundamental particle but could, at least in part, be made up of standard baryonic matter, such as protons or electrons. However ... most scientists consider the dark matter to be dominated by a non-baryonic component, which is likely composed of a new fundamental particle (or similar exotic state).

      Perhaps a correction is called for?

    36. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apologies, but almost all of this is wrong.

      Models based on observations indicated that 4% of the universe's mas/energy composition had to be normal, baryonic matter. Half of that 4% was missing until today. Dark matter, based on observations, needs to be approximately 23% of the mass of the universe. Otherwise galaxies would not have formed and would spin apart. Further, most of the mass of dark matter is associated with galaxies, and this matter was found between them. Details "matter" (unless of course they "energy").

      Perhaps I'm mistaken, but according to current theories (e.g., the standard 6-parameter lambda-CDM model)...

      ~4% baryonic matter
      ~23% dark matter (needed to explain formation of galaxies and larger scale structures)
      ~73% dark energy (needed to explain observed expansion rate of the universe)

      This current discovery only addresses part of the postulated, but previously unobserved 4% baryonic matter.

      FWIW, Dark matter is a bit a kludge in that a single type of dark matter in the model (cold dark matter) doesn't seem to explain things either (this is called the small scale problem). So there are proposals for "warm/cold" dark matter. And nobody really has a clue about dark energy... So yes, details "matter".

    37. Re:Dark matter by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      No, Baryonic means pastry, and dark matter is what happens if you leave it in the oven for too long.

    38. Re:Dark matter by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the story is about finally "seeing" half of the hidden baryonic mass that was inferred to exist from other data. That suggests that there is still a more baryonic mass that we only infer exists; it remains hidden.

      But that this has nothing to do with the dark matter and dark energy that is also inferred by current best theories.

      Someone has made a comment suggesting that much of the dark energy is the "vacuum energy", which I take as a reference to the energy that is demonstrated in the Casimir effect. I find that interesting and I might consider subscribing to your magazine.

    39. Re:Dark matter by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Good one, and progenitor is the next dodgy flange pastry. Not "The" progenitor. B randing is everything to the Daleks.

    40. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... is actually 33% cocoa mass and 12% hazelnut fondant.

    41. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain your answer or have it be literally only as valid as the question itself, "joh"

    42. Re:Dark matter by Sique · · Score: 2
      TFS made this very clear:

      You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull. But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.

      So yes, the article (and also the summary quoted) made it very clear that this discovery had nothing to do with Dark Matter and doesn't change any calculations regarding Dark Matter.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    43. Re:Dark matter by Sique · · Score: 1
      No. From the fine summary:

      You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull. But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.

      So this discovery does not change anything we postulate about Dark Matter.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    44. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those models don't work without dark matter, and considerable amounts of it (far more of it than the "missing" baryonic matter they found, in fact).

      I agree that the dark matter seems essential, especially because it's also backed by gravitational lensing experiments as well. But in the case of dark energy, there are actually competing models that can explain the evolution of the universe without dark energy, and the main change was simply doing the math more rigorously. So the models themselves still might have some room for improvement.

    45. Re:Dark matter by Sique · · Score: 2
      It's a little more complicated. Dark Matter is a moniker for a type of matter
      • we didn't detect yet, but whose existence we can conclude from the hehaviour of the outer parts of spiral galaxies.
      • helps understanding the forming of galaxy clusters and superclusters in computer models simulating the development of the universe
      • does not interact with electromagnetic waves except for bending them in gravitational fields
      • does not contain any baryons (e.g, mostly protons and neutrons).

      What the two teams detected now was matter which differs in at least two aspects from Dark Matter:

      • It interacts with electromagnetic waves, in this case with the Cosmic Background Radiation, and thus was detectable
      • It contains mostly baryons.
      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    46. Re:Dark matter by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      Well, since leptons do not interact with gluons, they are not affected by the quantum chromodynamics sector which defines the interactions between quarks and gluons... Hahhh!.. just kidding.

      As stated in other posts, the answer to the question "..we've now observed it and no longer require that "fix" in our valid maths. Right?" is "no". As the article states,

      "This is the first detection of the roughly half of the NORMAL matter in our universe – protons, neutrons and electrons – unaccounted for by previous observations.."

      I can only presume that joh did not explain his answer because it is obvious.

    47. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why aren't the two topics mutually exclusive?

      Or is that the SJW narrative now?
      All Must Think Like Us!

    48. Re:Dark matter by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the story is about finally "seeing" half of the hidden baryonic mass that was inferred to exist from other data. That suggests that there is still a more baryonic mass that we only infer exists; it remains hidden.

      Nah, you are part of the other half - and so am I. The other half (not the subject of this story) is simply known as "the observable universe".

      You can be forgiven for making this mistake because the title is phrased incorrectly; the second sentence of the summary just finally does a better job at explaining what's up.

      Personally, I feel writing "Half the universe’s missing matter..." instead of "The missing half of the universe’s matter..." is a far worse grammatical transgression than the "just been finally found". One the author should receive a stern dressing-down over. :-P

    49. Re:Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4% of the universe's mas/energy composition had to be normal, baryonic matter....Dark matter, based on observations, needs to be approximately 23% of the mass of the universe.

      And the other 73% is the fairy dust that makes it all sparkle?

    50. Re:Dark matter by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Your argument is persuasive. It is certainly possible that my failure to detect a second probable grammatical error of the same form as the first one had led me to a wrong conclusion.

      Unfortunately the likelihood that there is a systemic failure to use proper grammar in the story destroys its credibility rather than clarifying anything.

      This story is worthless. But the comments do suggest that filaments of baryonic matter exist between galaxies and have significant total mass. So there is redeeming value in slashdot publishing this very badly written story, even if the story itself is trash.

    51. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Because the matter found wasn't included in the dark matter estimation. The models already predicted that the recently found baryons were ordinary matter. The amount of predicted dark matter remains the same.

      TFS is somewhat confusing, but if you read it carefully you can note that only talks about dark matter because.

    52. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll vouch for joh's answer, and if you want to know why do some reading on the subject you lazy bastard

    53. Re: Dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There must a law name for posts where idiocy is indistinguishable from subtle trolling. The definition would be "Any sufficiently advanced trolling is indistinguishable from idiocy", if not I vote for Carson's law.

    54. Re:Dark matter by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The matter referred to in the summary is ordinary matter, like you find in the atmosphere or the lint trap. There's nothing special about it, except that we hadn't noticed it.

      Dark matter has gravitational effects, visible not only in galactic rotation but in gravitational lensing, and predicted by theories of the Universe being created. It doesn't interact significantly electromagnetically. We have detected it by noticing that there are gravitational fields where there is no ordinary matter, or at least not enough to create the field. We haven't detected it in any other way.

      What counts as detecting things? We see effects from various forces. We can touch things because of electromagnetic fields holding finger atoms out of the space containing spoon atoms. Hearing is similar. We can taste and smell based on chemistry, which is a function of electromagnetism. Seeing is straight transmission of electromagnetic waves/particles from an object into our eyes. If something doesn't interact electromagnetically, we have to detect it in a slightly more indirect manner.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    55. Re:Dark matter by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's matter spread out between galaxies very thinly. We initially found dark matter because of how galaxies rotate and by gravitational lensing, means that dark matter can accumulate in something analogous to clumps at astronomical scales. The newly discovered matter doesn't act like how we've observed dark matter to act.

      Also, there's far too little of it. Currently, we expect the Universe to be about 4% ordinary matter and about 25% dark matter, the remainder not being matter. We found half of the expected ordinary matter, which is less than a tenth of the dark matter we'd expect. There's not enough ordinary matter out there to produce the sort of universe we observe.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    56. Re:Dark matter by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Neutrinos are dark matter, in the sense that they don't interact electromagnetically. Neutrinos can't explain observed dark matter, so there has to be another form. If we have hot dark matter (neutrinos) and not-that-hot dark matter (the stuff that holds galaxies together and forms gravitational lenses), I see no reason why we couldn't have warm and cold. (There's also no reason I know of to think neutrinos are necessarily related to ordinary dark matter, since they're forms of matter that share a single property.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    57. Re:Dark matter by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The ways we've detected dark matter are from concentrations of the stuff, so what gravity does at intergalactic distances really doesn't have anything to do with it. What we know we've got is something that creates a gravitational field and doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. People have tried making different gravitational theories to explain galactic rotation, but I haven't heard of alternative explanations for gravitational lensing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:Dark matter by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, this discovery is evidence for our theories that the Universe is 4% baryonic matter, and these theories predict there's about six times that much dark matter. We knew about half of the predicted baryonic matter, and found the other half. The newly found baryonic matter doesn't do what we've observed dark matter to do in any case.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    59. Re:Dark matter by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The other half (not the subject of this story) is simply known as "the observable universe".

      Errr, no. The "observable universe" is a concept that has nothing the least to do with the nature of matter in the universe. The universe could consist entirely of pentaquarks, squarks, boring baryon matter, or nothing but photons and the meaning of the "observable universe" would change not one, jot, iota or plugged nickel.

      The "observable universe" it that region of the universe from which light could have got to your location, had it started travelling in the right direction at the start of the universe. Since forces happen by particles which travel at light speed or less, the observable universe is that portion of the universe which could possibly have affected your location. There is a corollary to this - locations at opposite directions in the observable universe as seen from your location cannot have interacted with each other in the lifetime of the universe to this date. Which is what makes the uniformity of the CMB and distribution of both matter and unobserved gravitating material ("dark matter", whatever that is) at such large separations so interesting, and is the main motivator of the "inflation" models of the early history of the universe.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    60. Re:Dark matter by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Oops, my bad for using the words in a general/literal sense while the term is indeed commonly used in a more specific sense in astrophysics. Though I find it somewhat ironic that you went through great pedantic lengths explaining said specific meaning ("the region from which light could have reached you within the lifetime of the universe" would have been more than sufficient, thank you very much) WITHOUT SUGGESTING A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE (that is layman-friendly). Any attempts at constructive criticism? "The visible universe" comes to mind, except that a big portion of the thing is known from observations at non-visible wavelengths. "The electromagnetically radiative universe" gets a bit complicated and still doesn't cut it, among others because some parts of it have only been observed by gravitational lensing or by absorption of light from objects behind it. "The part of the universe we knew for sure to be there, until now" is accurate, but gets a bit long, and there's the philosophical issue of applying "for sure" to empirical science. I'm throwing my hands in the air and going with "the entity formerly known a the universe". Feel free to make suggestions, which will be held against the same pedantic standards :-P

    61. Re:Dark matter by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      I know! I've repeatedly called New Scientist "the tabloid of pop sci", and this story once again confirms my low esteem of it (albeit for other reasons than the usual).

      To add insult to injury, slashdot almost never sources a science story from a decent outlet (e.g. Scientific American).

    62. Re:Dark matter by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Though I find it somewhat ironic that you went through great pedantic lengths explaining said specific meaning WITHOUT SUGGESTING A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE (that is layman-friendly). Any attempts at constructive criticism?

      Well, if you tried to say what you mean, without misusing the technical terminology, then I might have an idea of what you were trying to say. As it is, you have failed in your attempt to communicate whatever it was that you were trying to communicate.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. So where is the other missing half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm.. So they found half of the missing one. There is still another half missing. That is still a problem.

    1. Re:So where is the other missing half by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well let's hope they find it all at once. Because if they keep only finding half of what's missing we could be here forever.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:So where is the other missing half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but it's important that what they've found is not something exotic or string theory based, it was just normal matter in a place we weren't looking. Considering we've already eliminated half of dark matter it seems highly likely that the other half has some comparatively mundane explanation as well.

    3. Re:So where is the other missing half by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Something to do with socks and dryers, no doubt.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:So where is the other missing half by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      Of course the other other missing half is the antimatter.

    5. Re:So where is the other missing half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to my cosmology texts, there likely won't be a here here forever.

    6. Re:So where is the other missing half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't overexaggerate. Only till the heat death of the universe.

    7. Re: So where is the other missing half by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      They just need to check the cushions of the OTHER couch.

    8. Re:So where is the other missing half by PPH · · Score: 1

      Something to do with socks

      Nope. Socks are the larval stage of wire clothes hangars.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:So where is the other missing half by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      There will be, but it will be on repeat.

    10. Re:So where is the other missing half by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The ignorance of the average slashdot poster. I thought everyone knew that paperclips are embryo wire clothes hangers.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:So where is the other missing half by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Well let's hope they find it all at once. Because if they keep only finding half of what's missing we could be here forever.

      Wow, that was brilliant. I love your brain, whoever it is.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    12. Re:So where is the other missing half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong again! Socks are clearly the larval stage of pants.

  4. The simplest answer is often the correct one. by jellomizer · · Score: 0

    I wasn't much of a fan of the Dark Matter concept, as it was more or less a magical form of matter. A defuse gas seems to make more sense in my mind.

    I also expect as we dig further in the quantum level we will find a lot of the quantum silliness is actually something more comprehensible.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by ytene · · Score: 1

      Completely agree with you - Occam's Razor Wins Again...

      Or maybe "Swings Again", depending on how you take your puns...

    2. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      A defuse gas

      Shit? There's a bomb?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They found some missing regular matter that physics said must exist. It does nothing to disprove, or prove, dark matter.

    4. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article isn't about dark matter. Dark matter is believed to make up like 65% of the universe's mass-energy. This was just about missing baryonic (normal) matter.

      Here is another article that is a bit easier to read: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/news/a28562/researchers-find-universes-missing-matter/

    5. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by skoskav · · Score: 4, Informative

      Completely agree with you - Occam's Razor Wins Again...

      That's a butchering of Occam's Razor. The law is about preferring the most parsimonious hypothesis, i.e. the one that makes the fewest assumptions.

      Dark matter being composed of a diffuse gas of standard baryonic matter could be the simplest hypothesis, but it makes many assumptions by implicitly refuting consolidating evidence against it. Wikipedia lists a few of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    6. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't much of a fan of the Dark Matter concept, as it was more or less a magical form of matter. A defuse gas seems to make more sense in my mind.

      I also expect as we dig further in the quantum level we will find a lot of the quantum silliness is actually something more comprehensible.

      You aren't a fan of it, because you obviously didn't understand it.

      Specifically Dark Matter is place holder for "We don't know what it is, but we can observe it's gravitational interactions" matter, (Sounds cooler too). The magical forms of matter you're talking about are nothing but hypothesizes.

    7. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > we can observe it's gravitational interactions

      Perhaps it's made of superfluous apostrophes?

    8. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      A little knowledge still appears to be a dangerous thing.

    9. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If I understand the summary correctly, they're not saying there's no dark matter. What they're saying is that even accounting for dark matter, there should be twice as much non dark matter out there than had previously been observed. And this is what they've claiming to have found.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re: The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little learning, you mean. Are you trying to kill us?

    11. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      How diffuse would that defuse gas be?

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    12. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      A defuse gas

      Shit? There's a bomb?

      Yes, there will be a rapid diffusion of gas, if you don't defuse it first.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    13. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      All matter was dark matter at some point in time. There is an infinite amount of everything.

    14. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > we can observe it's gravitational interactions

      Perhaps it's made of superfluous apostrophes?

      Holy fuck'n shit! somebody made a typo used too god damn many fucking apostrophes! Time to shut down slashdot, turn off the internet and go back to quill pens and parchment! Even that might not be enough to save us, lets toss 16 thousand years of technology in the shitter and go back to painting on walls, but y'all better not use charcoal, because that's carbon and carbon is bad.

    15. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't say that some of the dark matter has been accounted for by this gas, but rather, some missing "regular" matter.

      The supposed amount of dark matter in the universe doesn't change a bit based on this discovery.

    16. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Dark matter is as dark matter does

    17. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A defuse gas seems to make more sense in my mind.

      I would prefer the explanation if it were a diffuse gas, personally.

    18. Re:The simplest answer is often the correct one. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The simplest answer would be "Because God wills it" - whatever the question is.

      Saloon bar scientist fails it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. 'Particles called baryons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary wasn't very clear on this, but it may be useful to know that baryons are in fact the category that includes all ordinary matter.

    1. Re:'Particles called baryons' by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Slashdot of all places should get the summary right. It sounds uneducated when they treat baryons as a distinct type of particle rather than a category that includes many familiar ones.

    2. Re: 'Particles called baryons' by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Why start now?

    3. Re:'Particles called baryons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They made it mysterious to increment the comment count by engaging pedants and other curious fellows.

    4. Re:'Particles called baryons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who upvoted parent?!?

      How in the world does "a type of particle" differ from "a category of particle?" Are "atoms" a type of particle? How about "cesium atoms" and "carbon atoms"? How about "protons"?

      Point being: type, category, etc. are not specially-defined words in physics. They just mean what they do in English; groupable under some criteria.

  6. Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by FeelGood314 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They found some of the missing baryon matter. This is the normal matter that is around us every day. Dark matter is stuff that has momentum and exerts a gravitational field but doesn't interact electromagnetically, so we can't see it. We believe most of the matter in the universe is dark matter but we also believe there is a lot more of the normal baryon matter out there but we just don't know where or what it is. These studies have shown that there are filaments of hot gas stretching between galaxies. The density of this gas is extremely low but the volume it occupies is huge so it contributes to a large amount of the baryon matter in the universe.

    1. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Informative

      Summary never said it was about dark matter. It's clearly talking about the missing baryon matter.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Summary isn't wrong. Just a bit vaguely worded. Basically it is saying "You remember dark matter, that stuff we can't find? Well, we also couldn't find half of normal matter. Until now."

    3. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summary is correct. However, it is just so poorly worded it almost sounds like they are saying that this missing matter was dark matter. Article was just saying that there were two types of matter we couldn't find but we just found one of them.

    4. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't affect the amount of dark matter. We're just better able to experimentally observe more of the ordinary matter that we already thought was there.

    5. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dark matter was/is the explanation for the missing regular matter. Less missing regular matter, less dark matter.

      The only data for dark matter is gravitational lensing in excess of what was accounted for by the previously known regular matter. All those numbers need to get run again in light of this discovery.

      Science reporting sucks.

      We suspect a certain amount of normal matter, and a certain amount of dark matter in the universe. All this study did was help confirm that we were right about the amount of normal matter out there. It has no effect, at all, on the amount of dark matter science thinks is out there as well. It didn't shift the totals one bit.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    6. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be honest, that shit doesn't befront me. What I'm saying is that I won't deal with pricks who ripped off Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie. I don't give a fuck about those types. These Johnny-Come-Latelys come forth to act like they're "discovering" something but the fact is that the Linuxfags are just about as adventurous and forward thinking as the bitches who slaughtered the first nation types in the name of a bunch of white fucktards. So to this I'll say that you fuckers can't even clean up your own backyard but you bother with the stars? You're a fucking farce.

      Just think of yourself as some 17th gender, go pout about politics and leave the real living to those of us who don't suck the dick of Linus.

    7. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      We know there is a certain amount of total mass. We don't know how that breaks down. Regular observable matter, regular unobservable matter and 'dark' matter.

      Every bit of additional observed regular matter reduces the amount that can be in other categories.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it helped confirm we were *more* right about the amount of normal matter.

      I'd be slightly surprised if this discovery didn't nudge models one way or another at least marginally, no ? (Ie. shifting the totals maybe only one literal bit)

    9. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      They could have said that they found neutrons or protons which would have been much easier to understand for most people here.

    10. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually we do not know a whole bunch of things. We have used place holders and educated guesses in the pursuit of making the math work for our observations. Once the math works we tend to draw a line and use the math in the future theoretical guess work. The biggest assumption is that the models we have calculated also apply to the physical universe. We assume our observations made from one little planet on the edge of a galaxy can be applied to the entire universe.

    11. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know there is a certain total amount of mass. Or theories predict there is a certain amount of total mass according to observations. Those observations could be flawed in some way. We already know the theories are wrong/incomplete, so theres that too.

    12. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mom, is that you?

    13. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The universe is known matter, dark matter, dark energy.

      This newly "discovered" matter has always been in the known matter percentage, thus has not effect on the amounts of dark matter or dark energy.

    14. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      You are profoundly ignorant on the subject, and yet you feel obligated to make pronouncements about it. You must be a /. regular!

      Really, if you are unaware - as you clearly are - that it is the rotation of galaxies, like the nearly Andromeda, and our own, that were the first evidence of the existence of dark matter then you know nothing about the subject.

      Try reading the Wikipedia page which lists ten different pieces of evidence showing its existence, with links to further material on each.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    15. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Ah, like the neutrino then, some type of matter that was postulated to make the numbers balance.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    16. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try reading, you just may like it.

      They found some of the regular matter that they expected was there, but just hard to see. Now they think they know where it is. There has been no changing in the amounts or percentages of dark matter. It doesn't even really change the amount of regular observable to regular unobservable, as they haven't actually seen it yet, just inferred its existence from other data.

    17. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      We know there is a certain amount of total mass. We don't know how that breaks down.

      This is incorrect.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    18. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) indicates that the universe is composed of about 5% baryonic matter, 24% non-baryonic matter, and 71% dark energy.

    19. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dark Matter is '30's era kludge to hide the " We don't have a fucking clue of what's going on" part. Quantized Inertia ditches Dark Matter GR kludge.Quantized inertia no dark matter explains proton anomaly,Propellant-less EMdrive [impulse engine], Unrah radation mod Horizon Drive. Derives Newton result from uncertainty principle. Minimum acceleration. Nobel level stuff and way off planet.
      https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.ca/
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1itasiXNUPg
      http://www.scoop.it/t/emdrive
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ge_ukRbuOw

    20. Re:Summary is wrong - not about dark matter by beastofburdon · · Score: 0

      The difference is that neutrinos can be detected and we had an actual, measurable, difference in mass for elements' atomic structure which needed to be explained. With dark matter and dark energy all their measurements are based on several layers of unproven assumptions, and when the calculations did not come out like they wanted they came up with a magic solution, dark matter, to make the equation balance.

  7. Discovery of the century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is confirmed, it is the discovery of the century. A bold claim, but we'll soon know if it is complete nonsense. If it's not, it may take some time to confirm.

    1. Re:Discovery of the century by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The century has just began, at the current rate, I'm pretty sure that the century will have much greater claims.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Discovery of the century by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      you just wasted my reading skills

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  8. Baryon Lives Matter by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    now we know

    1. Re:Baryon Lives Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dark Matter Lives

  9. Behind the couch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's where most of the missing stuff in my house is...

  10. Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it!

    1. Re:Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You can get canned Dark Matter? Where would I buy it? Can I get it pickled?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      200M should cover all rights and legal fees. also we can't take bit coin due to legal issues.

    3. Re:Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Syfy. And did they kill it off? I tried watching the latest season but I just couldn't care anymore.

    4. Re: Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spore drive

    5. Re:Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      You can get canned Dark Matter? Where would I buy it? Can I get it pickled?

      You already have two cans of it, you just can't see them.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    6. Re:Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      I don't give a dam for there new name!

    7. Re:Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      And now we all have an infinite amount.

    8. Re:Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Dark matter comes from the dark side. It is pure evil in a can. On Earth, it is also pickled and then known as lutefisk.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:Dark matter was a thing till scifi canned it! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I've been sitting on my can.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  11. I know where it is. Just ask me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's with my missing sock. Behind the washing machine or with the dust bunnies under my bed.

  12. Yo Momma is so fat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue the "Yo Momma" jokes....

  13. So, heat means energy, right? by Lorens · · Score: 1

    Does that matter exist between stars and not only between galaxies? Can it be used as fuel for spaceships? Inquiring minds want to know.

    1. Re:So, heat means energy, right? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Can it be used as fuel for spaceships?

      In a science fiction story, sure.

      In reality, no - it's far too sparse.

    2. Re:So, heat means energy, right? by DidgetMaster · · Score: 2

      It's kind of like that 'asteroid belt' between Mars and Jupiter. When you see it in movies, they show it like the asteroid field in Star Wars (Empire Strikes Back, I think) where there are thousands of asteroids very close to one another and constantly smashing into one another. In reality, the average distance between objects is something like 2 million miles and most of them aren't any bigger than a basketball. All the asteroids put together wouldn't create a planet even half the size of Pluto.

  14. Comets have a tail by omnichad · · Score: 1

    It only makes sense for something as large as a galaxy in motion to shed a bit during travel. They produce enough of their own light.

  15. bad day for sci-fi by Mozai · · Score: 1

    Which one of us is going to tell Blue Penguin production company (makers of the "Dark Matter" teevee series) that their show's been found?

    1. Re:bad day for sci-fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, as this is not about dark matter at all.

    2. Re:bad day for sci-fi by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Nope, as this is not about dark matter at all.

      Yea I didn't realize reading comprehension around here was so bad. I mean I knew it wasn't great, but damn, this is needs a job coach to flip burgers bad.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  16. Dang it! Scientist! Should you... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    I was just about to report it lost and file insurance claims...

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  17. Connecting? by sycodon · · Score: 1

    The fact that these "filaments" are strung from one galaxy to another suggests they are clinging to or following some kind of structure, no?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Connecting? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Neurons and synapses. The universe is a brain.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Connecting? by sysrammer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Neurons and synapses. The universe is a brain.

      The cool kids are spelling it "brane" now.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Connecting? by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 2

      You have to think of it more like the stringy bits of cheese when you tear a slice off a pizza. Or the vomit running off your chin after 10 pints of lager, 5 large whiskies and an extra large four cheese pizza. It can help understanding to picture the universe as a mixture of alcohol, doughy cheese and stomach lining.

    4. Re:Connecting? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I'm in!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  18. Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    or maybe they aren't relevant to what is being discussed? since when is Slashot concerned with gun control in either direction?

    this certainly doesn't have anything to do with missing matter in the universe

  19. For small values of half maybe by burtosis · · Score: 1

    So by half the matter in the universe, we are taking 2.0-2.3% tops.

    1. Re:For small values of half maybe by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      So by half the matter in the universe, we are taking 2.0-2.3% tops.

      This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe -- protons, neutrons and electrons -- unaccounted for by previous observations of stars, galaxies and other bright objects in space.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:For small values of half maybe by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Neither the slashdot nor the linked article said "half the normal matter". That's why I linked the actual arrive paper.

    3. Re:For small values of half maybe by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Neither the slashdot nor the linked article said "half the normal matter". That's why I linked the actual arrive paper.

      That quote is straight from "the slashdot" so I don't know what slashdot you were reading but here is one from the paper's summary:

      Observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters in the local universe can account for only 10% of the baryon content inferred from measurements of the cosmic microwave background and from nuclear reactions in the early Universe. Locating the remaining 90% of baryons has been one of the major challenges in modern cosmology. Cosmological simulations predict that the 'missing baryons' are spread throughout filamentary structures in the cosmic web...

      https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10378v1

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  20. Baryons , just like in Star Trek Next Gen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Baryon_sweep ....

  21. Great by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Let me know when they are finally able to detect the infinite amount of matter the universe actually has, as well as its infinite everything else.

    1. Re:Great by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Let me know when they are finally able to detect the infinite amount of matter the universe actually has, as well as its infinite everything else.

      You do understand, right, that in an infinite universe (with, by extension, an infinite amount of matter if you want to think of it that way) can be a thing while still not manifesting itself as an infinite amount of matter (or even hardly any matter at all) in any particular volume. Right? You get that part?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Great by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      It's infinitely small.

    3. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When trying to quantitate, best not assert INFINITE of any physical entity. INFINITE is not a numeric value while science bases its value on numeric predictions.

  22. TL;DR version by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was behind the couch along with all the missing cat toys, single socks and car keys. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:TL;DR version by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just looked behind our couch and found exactly the same thing.

      Which is odd because we've never had a cat. Or a car.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:TL;DR version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I found that too and I don't even have a couch.

    3. Re:TL;DR version by dywolf · · Score: 1

      but was the remote back there?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:TL;DR version by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Well, it solves the problem of how that one person got left at the end of the Swingers night though.

    5. Re:TL;DR version by Dareth · · Score: 1

      Hey, let me know if you find my AT to PS2 adapters back there. It was right here a decade or so ago.

      --

      I only look human.
      My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  23. It was easy to find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just searched the bottom of every woman's purse.

  24. They should have just asked its mother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    she would have told them it was behind the sofa,

  25. I guess if missing baryon problem is solved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then we can call out as heretical and persecute anyone who continues to look for another possible answer.

  26. String theory by hord · · Score: 0

    Are these cosmic super-strings? They would act like information conveyors over large time scales between the interconnected galaxies and would have been primed since the early cosmos.

    1. Re:String theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. no.

  27. First time for everything! by galabar · · Score: 1

    I think that this is the first time the phrase "Has Just Been Finally Found" has been used, ever: https://www.google.com/search?...

  28. I keep misreading this headline by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

    as "University" vs "Universe." Good for them. Lol.

  29. James Gates string theory checksum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find some of the similarities in James Gates sting theory CRC calculations interesting when compared to the bayron genesis model.
    -aw

  30. Hot gas in a cold universe? by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Would just cool down by emitting IR. Hot gas needs something to keep it hot, like a nearby star.

    The article does not make sense.

    1. Re: Hot gas in a cold universe? by orlanz · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I had it in reverse. They detected the gaps in the light left from the Big Bang. Basically shadows of the gas particles. The lukewarm gas itself doesn't emit anything detectable. Put together a bunch of pictures of microscopic gaps and you can build up a shadow of a mass in the shape of a thread.

    2. Re: Hot gas in a cold universe? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I had it in reverse. They detected the gaps in the light left from the Big Bang. Basically shadows of the gas particles. The lukewarm gas itself doesn't emit anything detectable. Put together a bunch of pictures of microscopic gaps and you can build up a shadow of a mass in the shape of a thread.

      Which just means that aberglas didn't actually read the article or they would know this already. Got to love /.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  31. Re:Credit where it is due by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Hillary lost. Get over it.

    Not until he gets his first edition, hardbound copy of "What Happened" signed and put in a display case.

  32. Just like my flatulence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Because the gas is so tenuous and not quite hot enough for X-ray telescopes to pick up, nobody had been able to see it before."

  33. Re:I just created some matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that happen every time somebody mentions baryons?

    Baryon.... BARYON!

  34. Not half: only 2% or 7% depending... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's also not half the missing matter. Dark Matter is matter just not made of atomic constituents (protons, neturons and electrons) generally called baryonic matter. Only 4% of the universe is made of baryonic matter which, if the summary is correct and the half of this which was missing has been found this means that only 2% of the missing mass-energy of the universe has been discovered. There is a remaining 25% of the mass-energy of the universe in Dark Matter (which is still matter, just not baryonic) and ~71% which is Dark Energy which is the vacuum energy.

    So, I suppose if you just refer to matter alone then ~ 7% of the missing matter of the universe has been found but that is still nowhere near 50%, to claim that much you have to specify "50% of baryonic matter" or find Dark Matter (but in that case it would probably be a lot more than 50% found).

    1. Re:Not half: only 2% or 7% depending... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I knew this already because logically, if the Enterprise D only needed one baryon cleaning sweep in a seven year run there can't be that much of it. 4% sounds about right.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Not half: only 2% or 7% depending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary was hard to parse, but it sounds like they didn't find Dark Matter at all, but instead found the other half of baryonic matter than theory predicted. Baryonic matter still makes a small sliver of the overall mass/energy of the Universe and we still have no idea what Dark Matter is.

    3. Re: Not half: only 2% or 7% depending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they said! It was totally and unequivocally clear from the summary!

    4. Re:Not half: only 2% or 7% depending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those worried about missing dark matter, perhaps this will help solve the problem: https://phys.org/news/2016-12-verlinde-theory-gravity.html

    5. Re:Not half: only 2% or 7% depending... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      I assume he meant half in the logical sense. I.e., there were two lines of inquiry that required additional investigation.

      The first question regards the missing baryonic matter, which this article addressed. Kudos to the authors.

      The second question is dark matter, which has not been directly observed or precisely described. Maybe that will be done before I'm dead, but who knows?

      Or maybe the statement applied solely to baryonic matter, which is what most people think of when they see the word "matter" anyway. Either way, it resolves a significant problem.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  35. Dark Matter is the norm by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe -- protons, neutrons and electrons

    Well technically since ~4% of the universe is made of protons, neutrons and electrons (baryonic matter) and ~25% is made of Dark Matter arguably "normal matter" is, in fact, Dark Matter since it is about 6 times more abundant by mass. Plus the headline is wrong since Dark Matter is matter too so really only ~7% of the missing matter has been found which is a lot less than 50%.

  36. The title is wrong though by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 0

    The title says "matter" and whatever Dark Matter is it is most definitely matter so either the reference to "matter" is wrong or the 50% number is wrong because what is described is not the discovery of 50% of the missing matter in the universe, only 50% of the missing baryonic matter.

    1. Re:The title is wrong though by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      The title says "matter" and whatever Dark Matter is it is most definitely matter so either the reference to "matter" is wrong or the 50% number is wrong because what is described is not the discovery of 50% of the missing matter in the universe, only 50% of the missing baryonic matter.

      So what you are saying is that you didn't even bother to read the summary, much less the article or the actual papers linked in the article, and you are arguing the validity of all that based on the headline?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:The title is wrong though by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      No, what I am saying is that a title saying "Half the Universe's Missing Matter Has Just Been Finally Found" is wrong. Half the Universe's missing BARYONIC matter has been found, which is ~7% of the Universe's matter or ~2% of the Universe's mass-energy. There is no reading of that title which is correct regardless of what the summary, the article or anything else says.

  37. Gravity doesn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So there is no missing dark matter.

    The Earth is flat and stationary. Michelson-Morley found no motion of Earth, and 18 years later Einstein invented fixed-speed light, curving space, fluxing time, and abolished the ether.

  38. YAMMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another missing mass story.
    We've been getting these hot baryonic threads for years, https://www.universetoday.com/85927/australian-student-uncovers-the-universes-missing-mass/ for example

  39. And the other half... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    And the other half... is AOL discs... am I right?

    1. Re:And the other half... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car insurance policies and birth certificates, in my experience.

  40. Re: MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand how making them illegal would have stopped anything, they already exists.
    Making something illegal doesn't magic it out of existence.

  41. This is the end of American science leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had a good run USA; step aside.

    Enjoy your clean coal.

  42. Scientists find OP's Mom by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the low-effort shitpost... I couldn't resist.

  43. Was it behind the couch or under the fridge? by Phoenix · · Score: 1

    I'm betting some cat knocked it there.

    --
    -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
  44. They Must Have Looked ... by tmjva · · Score: 1

    ... in the last place they left it!

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  45. So, to clarify... by hardluck86 · · Score: 1

    They found dark matter that was half the missing matter that isn't dark matter but was too dark which is why it was missing and that matters but we still haven't found dark matter.

  46. itll be found... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll be in the last place they look.

  47. annonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GOTTA LOVE THE NAME!!!!!!
    whoa!!!!! my brain just exploded and looks we found half the matter that had been missing

  48. Electric universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, > linking galaxies together through filaments of hot, diffuse gas means that the electric universe theory has been confirmed?
    EU theory talks about plasma filaments between galactic supergroups, galaxies and stars.

  49. NS Not convincing. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 0

    So we have light from the big bang that is going through the gas that it created in the first place and it's really hot gas, but not hot enough to detect. Considering it's been out there for *BILLIONS* of years. They had to use 250,000+ galaxys to show something? Sounds like they're making the data fit the hypothesis.

    Look around, it's still missing.

  50. Re:Credit where it is due by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    GP AC never mentioned Hillary. You appear to be the one who doesn't believe the election results.

    Trump won. Get over it. That means that Trump is responsible for all the idiotic crap coming out of the White House. Clinton is politically irrelevant now, and Trumpistas blaming anything on her is pathetic.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes